1946 Document on Jewish Children Tells a Different Story [Zenit]

  • Thread starter Thread starter stumbler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

stumbler

Guest
ROME, JAN. 12, 2005 (Zenit.org).- The latest in a series of accusations about Pope Pius XII’s behavior vis-à-vis the Jews and Nazi persecution seems to have little basis in fact.

The latest round began Dec. 28 when an Italian newspaper published passages of an alleged 1946 Vatican document that supposedly aimed to keep baptized Jewish children from being returned to their families.

The text, as stated in Il Corriere della Sera by Alberto Melloni, director of the G. Dossetti Library of the John XXIII Foundation for Religious Sciences of Bologna, was “a disposition of the Holy Office,” as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was formerly known. The document was said to be dated Oct. 20, 1946.

But after careful research, ZENIT discovered that the document, in fact, was not of the Holy Office and did not bear evidence of the reported date. Nor did it state what the article in Il Corriere said it did. . . .
catholic.net/global_catholic_news/template_news.phtml?news_id=64598&channel_id=2
 
ROME, JAN. 12, 2005 (Zenit.org).- The latest in a series of accusations about Pope Pius XII’s behavior vis-à-vis the Jews and Nazi persecution seems to have little basis in fact.
Click to expand...
The only people who should be more embarrassed than the media who took this forgery at face value are the conservative Catholics who rush to defend Pius XII based on this false report. :rotfl:
 
40.png
katherine2:
The only people who should be more embarrassed than the media who took this forgery at face value are the conservative Catholics who rush to defend Pius XII based on this false report. :rotfl:
Click to expand...
I don’t understand why defending Pius XII against libel and slander would cause a Catholic any embarrasment. What do you mean by defend “based on this false report”?
 
40.png
swampfox:
I don’t understand why defending Pius XII against libel and slander would cause a Catholic any embarrasment. What do you mean by defend “based on this false report”?
Click to expand...
Well, sweetheart, we saw a few statements by people who took the forgery as true and defended what they thought were the actions of Pius XII. I bet they feel foolish this morning!:rotfl:
 
40.png
katherine2:
Well, sweetheart, we saw a few statements by people who took the forgery as true and defended what they thought were the actions of Pius XII. I bet they feel foolish this morning!:rotfl:
Click to expand...
Frankly, I don’t understand your position on this either, Katherine2. Is the new standard you’re wanting to impose on everyone the fact that not only can we NOT TRUST our Church, but we can also NOT TRUST newspapers that are supposed to be unbiased, accurate and objective???

Fiat
 
40.png
katherine2:
Well, sweetheart, we saw a few statements by people who took the forgery as true and defended what they thought were the actions of Pius XII. I bet they feel foolish this morning!:rotfl:
Click to expand...
Well thanks honeykins. We are getting familiar now, aren’t we?
 
40.png
swampfox:
Well thanks honeykins. We are getting familiar now, aren’t we?
Click to expand...
I hope so. I’ll bet you have a kind face. I would put you on my buddy list if I knew what that was.
 
40.png
Fiat:
Frankly, I don’t understand your position on this either, Katherine2. Is the new standard you’re wanting to impose on everyone the fact that not only can we NOT TRUST our Church, but we can also NOT TRUST newspapers that are supposed to be unbiased, accurate and objective???

Fiat
Click to expand...
After enduring endless tirades about the “biased liberal media” I am suppose to think that I was introducing something unheard of by not trusting the media?

This story stunk from the begining. Unsigned document on plain paper rather than letterhead, with no evidence that this was how the Church actually acted and statements of Archbishop Rocalli to the contrary.

And, yes, I don’t see any virtue in those who took the press accounts at face value and defended what they thought were the actions of Pius XII and damned Archbishop Rocalli’s actions to the contrary.
 
I think what Katherine2 is saying is that Catholics shouldn’t believe everything the media says. This article was clearly an article intended to decieve and mislead the flock. The release was a con job if I saw one. That document has no authenticity whatsoever, and is not credited to Pius XII anyway. Anyway, the Catholic source has a better take on this.

Padre Pio “Don’t worry, work and pray.”
 
40.png
bones_IV:
I think what Katherine2 is saying is that Catholics shouldn’t believe everything the media says. This article was clearly an article intended to decieve and mislead the flock. The release was a con job if I saw one. That document has no authenticity whatsoever, and is not credited to Pius XII anyway. Anyway, the Catholic source has a better take on this.

Padre Pio “Don’t worry, work and pray.”
Click to expand...
Exactly. We had a phony document. It phoniness was indicated in two ways. First was the phyiscal form – it was unsigned; it was not on letterhead, it directive was not backed up by actual behavior (i.e. the no one found that the things it called for were actually done).

Second, it directed something that seemed uncharitable and unChristian (to fair minded people).

Those who rush to criticize Pius XII failed to pick up on the clues of the first.

Those who rush to defend these claimed actions as moral failed to pick up on the second.

Both now look very foolish.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top